Really? One can tell you have no idea about gambling.
Nobody in their right mind would gamble at a casino with 5% house edge, when competitors offer a 1% house edge. This is a faucet, and people spent years clicking them.
By using this "random" number, they can easily manipulate it. All they have to do is reset the server seed once in a while. It's quite obvious they did it for the $200-winners, but unclear if they also did it for the $20 winners. Just a few resets every 10,000 rolls would be enough to reduce the total cost of their faucet (which is after all meant to get people hooked to gambling) by up to 90%. They couldn't do that with a fixed faucet amount.
See, that's why I'm telling you that you have no idea how gambling works. And, on the contrary, wetsuit did. The business casinos don't do with people who think about the House Edge, because gambling already doesn't make much sense to begin with when there is a House Edge. You are inevitably going to lose money in the long run. The difference between 1 and 3 or 5% to those players who are profitable for the casino does not matter, many of them do not even know what it is, and many others have some idea but do not care, they prefer to play on a site with 5% than in another 1% if certain things they like more of the site.
You probably understand House Edge and mathematics better than 99% of those who write in the gambling section, that's why you don't bet, but what you don't understand is how the business works. The audience that wetsuit and other casino owners are looking for is not you or me.
You know that such a small sample doesn't prove anything, don't you?
I manually counted 10 pages. If you think my sample size is too small, feel free to count
all 152 pages for a much larger sample size.
There's no way I'm going to waste my time. You know that sample size doesn't prove anything, because if it did, no matter how conservative you are with your feedbacks you would have red tagged them long ago. Not even counting everyone in that thread one by one would do it. I'm used to in poker that to get an idea the minimum sample size is 50K hands. And as brutal as variance can be, to prove things, better half a million hands.
... this doesn't have a 5% chance of happening, it's 20,000 times less! And this is exactly what I meant when I said the bad signs were there, but were massively ignored. The odds of this happening twice in a row are several orders of magnitude lower. Count the rest of the topic, and you'll see this pattern continues.
In any case, with such a small sample, it seems quite a high deviation from what the mean should be, I agree.
Is it possible that not all winners came to the Bitcointalk forum and reported their winnings? 5 or 10 big wins in this statistic can significantly change the final assessment, and that is quite a possible scenario.
That is another point. It is a sample of those who reported the winnings. Not a record of casino rolls.
